This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December of the current year). This form includes four sections, addressing global metrics, program stories, financial information, and compliance. Please contact APG/FDC staff if you have questions about this form, or concerns submitting it by the deadline. After submitting the form, organizations will also meet with APG staff to discuss their progress.

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees' programs. Please use the table below to let us know how your programs contributed to the Global Metrics. We understand not all Global Metrics will be relevant for all programs, so feel free to put "0" where necessary. For each program include the following table and

Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.

Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.

In addition to the Global Metrics as measures of success for your programs, there is another table format in which you may report on any OTHER relevant measures of your programs success

Please tell the story of each of your programs included in your proposal. This is your chance to tell your story by using any additional metrics (beyond global metrics) that are relevant to your context, beyond the global metrics above. You should be reporting against the targets you set at the beginning of the year throughout the year. We have provided a template here below for you to report against your targets, but you are welcome to include this information in another way. Also, if you decided not to do a program that was included in your proposal or added a program not in the proposal, please explain this change. More resources for storytelling are at the end of this form. Here are some ways to tell your story.

We encourage you to share your successes and failures and what you are learning. Please also share why are these successes, failures, or learnings are important in your context. Reference learning patterns or other documentation.

Make clear connections between your offline activities and online results, as applicable. For example, explain how your education program activities is leading to quality content on Wikipedia.

We encourage you to tell your story in different ways by using videos, sound files, images (photos and infographics, e.g.), compelling quotes, and by linking directly to work you produce. You may highlight outcomes, learning, or metrics this way.

We encourage you to continue using dashboards, progress bars, and scorecards that you have used to illustrate your progress in the past, and to report consistently over time.

You are welcome to use the table below to report on any metrics or measures relevant to your program. These may or may not include the global metrics you put in the overview section above. You can also share your progress in another way if you do not find a table like this useful.

Target

Last year (if applicable)

Progress (at end of Q2)

End of year (projected or actual)

Comments

Example

Example

Example

Example

Example

Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 2Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.

Revenue source

Currency

Anticipated

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Cumulative

Anticipated ($US)*

Cumulative ($US)*

Explanation of variances from plan

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 3Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement?[edit]

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Global metrics are an important starting point for grantees when it comes to measuring programmatic impact (Learning Patterns and Tutorial) but don’t stop there.

Logic Models provide a framework for mapping your pathway to impact through the cause and effect chain from inputs to outputs to outcomes. Develop a logic model to map out your theory of change and determine the metrics and measures for your programs.

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 1-2 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.

CHANGES: Please describe how you changed your plans and budget based on the FDC allocation approved by the Board in December 2012, and your rationale for these changes. You can then use the changed plans and budget as the basis on which to report back on the first quarter.

No changes in the plan.

HIGHLIGHTS: What were 1–2 important highlights of the past quarter? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned.)

The competition Wiki Loves Public Art, a sister to Wiki Loves Monuments, where conducted for the first time. Over 9,000 images on more than 2,000 objects from over 200 participants of which more than 100 were new users.

Starting a collaboration with The Swedish Educational broadcasting radio on using Wikiversity as a platform.

Press accreditations to Eurovision song contest and the Royal wedding gave a lot of high quality images on highly viewed articles.

WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this quarter?

Mostly Swedish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons but also Swedish Wikiversity.

GROWTH: How did your entity grow over the past quarter vs. the previous quarter (e.g., Number of active editors reached/involved/added, number of articles created, number of events held, number of partipants reached through workshops)?

New users through chapter activities: 10+ (these are confirmed, probably many more during edit-a-thons and workshops which were not tracked)

Editors involved in chapter activities: 81+ (same as above)

Media uploaded helped by chapter resources: 1800+

Media viewed: 12,683,303 times

Persons engaged in workshops and seminars: ~165

Persons reached in presentations: ~580

Number of events held (edit-a-thons, workshops, seminars, presentations): 29

The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Table 2Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.

Revenue source

Currency

Anticipated

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Cumulative

Anticipated ($US)*

Cumulative ($US)*

Explanation of variances from plan

FDC grant round 1, 2012

SEK

2,350,000

564,627

602,818

-

-

1,167,445

$341,570

$169,687

50 %

Grant from Wiki Skills

SEK

235,000

101,145

46,261

-

-

147,406

$34,156

$21,425

63 %

Grant from Europeana Awareness

SEK

230,000

97,887

128,792

-

-

226,679

$33,430

$32,948

99 %. Anticipation actually got a lot higher after the application was made since a lot of the work (and so the funds) from 2012 where moved to 2013.

Membership fees

SEK

15,000

12,200

1,900

-

-

14,100

$2,180

$1,990

94 %. Since member dues are in Q1 and Q2, most revenues were anticipated here.

Donations

SEK

20,000

14,125

1,799

-

-

15,924

$2,907

$2,315

80 %. Better than expected.

Interests, sales

SEK

15,000

48

28

-

-

76

$2,180

$11

1 %. Bulk is expected in Q4.

Other grants

SEK

1,835,000

114,468

154,121

-

-

268,589

$266,715

$39,039

14 %. Other fundraising has not gone as fast as expected. There is a risk we will not reach our target.

Table 3Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)

Expense

Currency

Budgeted

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Cumulative

Budgeted ($US)*

Cumulative ($US)*

Percentage spent to date

Explanation of variances from plan

Staff expenses (including on-costs, labour taxes, etc)

SEK

3,130,000

609,126

713,848

-

-

1,322,974

$454,942

$192,293

42 %

-

Community support

SEK

619,000

7,906

13,828

-

-

21,734

$89,971

$3,159

4 %

Programs started late, hockey stick effect is expexted.

Content liberation

SEK

110,000

10,143

39,686

-

-

50,099

$15,988

$7,282

46 %

-

Free knowledge in Education

SEK

80,000

41,595

37,375

-

-

78,970

$11,628

$11,478

99 %

Most of the work done in Q1 and Q2. The rest of the year will mostly just support these efforts.

Reader participation

SEK

75,000

1,883

1,872

-

-

3,755

$10,901

$546

5 %

Heavily dependent on Other grants and has not really taken off due to lack of them.

Free knowledge awareness

SEK

90,000

0

3,677

-

-

3,677

$13,081

$534

4 %

Heavily dependent on Other grants and has not really taken off due to lack of them.

This section addresses the impact of the programs / initiatives* and objectives your entity has implemented over the past quarter and the progress your entity is making toward meeting this year's goals. We understand that some metrics may not be applicable in this quarterly report, so please add metrics here if they are applicable.

*In the last round, the FDC used the term 'initiative', but this round, we are using the term 'program.'

Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

The community got professional guidelines on how to make text easier to read. Discussion on how that can be adapted to use in articles is on-going, but it is clear that some users found these guidlines usefull.

The Association for Mental health will continue with edit-a-thons once per month on their own.

12 participants in the Sustainable development edit-a-thon, half of them entirely new users.

So far two articles this year has been referenced through the reference literature programme.

Over 800 high quality images and videos through one very happy volunteer.

We helped a volunteer get accreditation at the Princess Madeleine wedding which resulted in 20 of the images in the Commons category.

Launched a mini grants program (similar to the program in Wikimedia UK).

We launched our funding for Community driven projects. It is meant that grants are a bit bigger than the mini grants.

Our technology pool is continuosly used. We started tracking it more closely now and will report on that later on.

The first mini grant, a photosafari with the focus on documenting the history of the mining and iron working areas of Sweden, was completed; images are in this Commons category (uploading is still ongoing, 228 images so far).

Some potential editors dropped off the series of edit-a-thons with the Association for Mental health due to a too complex editor interface. Hopefully the launch of the Visual Editor can make that less frequent.

Curiously it is hard to get editors to wish for reference literature.

The fact that we could get accreditation, and the resulting images from the Eurovision Song Contest, created a very good response in the Swedish community.

Some statistics are hard to find. We are now relying on the Baglama tool to figure out viewings of media, which is not very flexible (but thanks to Magnus Manske for providing it!). It could help to have a tool where you could change those categories yourself in order to be able to dig in the data easier to see what is relevant.

The cameras are much more popular than the video equipment. Some feedback we get is that is too much work in uploading video to Commons. A user friendly pipeline from Youtube to Commons has been suggested. Another idea is to make it possible to upload the major videoformats and having the conversion handled serverside (and the proprietary file is thrown away afterwards, never visible to anyone).

Any additional details:

Our application to the Swedish National Board for Youth Affairs for a grant on about USD 63.000 to work on the gender gap on Wikipedia was accepted. The project, which will include a large number of edit-a-thons around the country, will start in August and end in March 2014.

Teachers present the projects to be used as a resource for the pupils and students

Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

The education programme has been heard and seen much during Q2 partly due to the large audience at SETT. This is one step closer to have Wikipedia accepted as a resource in education.

The Swedish Educational broadcasting radion has generously told us that they will do a short movie about Wikiversity and how it works which is a good grade in getting accepted by one of the greatest educational institutions there are in Sweden.

The ministry of Education has taken time to see us to talk about events this autumn and took a great interest in our programme.

Librarians are eager to learn more about Wikipedia and how to use it and courses are planned this autumn.

Three municipalities are set for participation in the Swedish for immigrants project. Getting the agreements signed is a significant step for Wikipedia being used as a teaching tool.

Found and engaged 5 Wikipedia ambassadors.

Activities conducted.

Started a project with the teacher Karin Brånebäck for teachers who do flipped-classroom movies. First movie is uploaded to Commons and more are to follow. See here.

Initiated contact with Södertörn who wish to seek funding jointly with us for a project aligning their knowledge in journalism and data with Wikipedia.

Dialogue with Tom in Brazil who's leading the education programme there about sharing mistakes and things to learn.

Had workshop with teacher students at Stockholm University.

Participated as jury member in Webbstjärnan 2013.

Was invited and held a talk in at the REK think-tank with Microsoft among others.

Met KMH and planned the Wikipedia in education for the autumn.

Held lectures at SETT both days.

Was invited to hold two seminars at the international high school in Gothenburg.

Was invited to speak at the Läromedelsmässa in Gothenburg by GR utbildning.

Went to Östra skolan in Malmö and held a workshop for the teachers there.

A plan has been given to all education managers worldwide as to start talking to each other.

The Swedish for immigrants projects had had its kick-off.

Participated on the Education day on the Wikimedia Conference in Milan.

Wikiskills had a meeting in Geneva.

Workshop with Center for school development in Gothenburg and 20 educators.

Have engaged our intern in connecting Swedish Wikiversity with Moodle so we can run courses for teachers and ambassadors more interactively.

Have translated the Education extension to Swedish. The Education program then got activated on Swedish Wikipedia in June.

Seminar in Malmö with teachers at a school.

Present at an international book-fair in Stockholm.

Seminar for immigrants studying Swedish.

Developed a concept for Lund University to be utilised this autumn, similar to the Swedish Agricultural University project with a Wikipedian in Academy.

Meeting with our very first Wikipedia ambassador about his ideas and engagement.

A short video for teachers and our Wikipedia in Education program was launched.

We signed agreements with the schools that will paricipate in the project Wikipedia collaboration with Swedish for immigrants.

Our intern Eric worked on complementing our Wikiversity course with a Moodle session.

What worked and what did not?

It takes time. I've recently gotten an email from someone who met us at Skolforum in October this past year and who now wants us to help him with a Wikipedia education programme. And perhaps it is OK that it takes time.

Librarians are so eager to learn about Wikipedia and are a great group to work with.

It is good to have the target group (i.e schools and universities) pay for the trip if they wish to have a workshop with us. They're much more dedicated and care, partly because it costs them money

Not all people will become Wikipedians (no shit :) but are interested to know how it works and how they may 'look at' it differently, with all the tabs etc. Perhaps that is enough for some and that should arguably also be OK .

When working with external parts, it is important to have a clear picture on how the responsibilities has been divided.

The Flipped Classroom portal got us a bit of a setback since a lot of Swedish teachers use Iphones and Ipads and video don't play well on them. Getting video to work on them should be given priority from the Wikimedia Foundation developers side.

Participants: 100 participants, including 4 participants in the hackathon (the hackathon was an integrated part of the ÖDOK project as well).

External communication: Two blog post and TV team interviewed the hackathon participants. The event information featured Wikimedia Sverige logotype.

The hack-a-thon developed a proof-of-concept on how the Wiki Loves Public Art API can be used. [3]

GLAM-WIKI 2013

Participants: GLAM-WIKI 2013 had around 150 participants (the goal for the year is that 600 Wikip/medians will participate at EA event + WLPA).

External communication: GLAM-WIKI 2013 was blogged about 15 times and John was interviewed by a journalist writing for the journal Museum Practice and the Museums Journal. The event information featured both Wikimedia Sverige's and Europeana's logotypes.

GLAM-WIKI 2013 hackathon

Participants: Unclear number. Out of the roughly 80 people that had signed up around 50 people participated in the end at the unconference day. However, very few took part in the hackathon. Only two participants worked on a tool, but not on the GLAMtoolset (which was what we planned for and had promoted), but a few others talked to the developers and suggested improvements. Despite Europeana, WMSE, WMUK and THATcamp promoting it widely. This is not considered a successful event.

Wiki Loves Public Art

The infrastructure on Commons is in place.

Lists has been prepared.

In total, 17 municipalities have released data on their public art.

André Costa participated at the Hackathon and worked on preparing the Open Database of Public Art in Sweden (ÖDOK) for WLPA 2014. Together with Maarten Dammers he also bug fixed a tool for uploading images from Europeana, named "Europeana search tool query" that has been very helpful for preparing for the upcoming edit-a-thons in June. During the Hackathon André had good opportunities to network and inform other developers about the WLPA contest.

We are continuosly strengthening our partnership with Europeana and have discussed more new projects related to GLAM and freely licensed content.

We created a proof-of-concept map showing the 71 geo-tagged works of public art in Stockholm from our Open Database for Public Art.

What worked and what did not?

Digikult conference + hackathon

Great and dedicated partners that was instrumental in the success. Lennart was the one doing the majority of the work from WMSE in preparations for the conference. It was harder than expected to reach developers that wanted to participate in the hackathon. However, in the end it was budget constrains that limited the participation at the hackathon. We should work on creating a list of possible people and initiate cooperations with other orgs./companies/universities that might help us broadcast these type of events. It was really easy to convince the participants from Umeå University to take part. They all enjoyed the event a lot.

GLAM-WIKI 2013 conference

There were a few phone conferences as part of the preparation which took time, but they were rather productive (even though it was hard to hear what was said sometimes because of the large group participating).

GLAM-WIKI 2013 hackathon

See the Digikult hackathon.

When having workshops and edit-a-thons with the Working life museums we need to take into consideration that they are less likely to have their own laptops. We should plan to use computer labs that are fully equipped.

The Vasa Museum has had a hard time recruiting volunteers to do work on Commons.

June is not the best month for edit-a-thons; school ends, National day and Midsummers eve and summer vacations starts, which gave a lower turnout than we hoped for.

Participants in all five countries: 225 participants (at least 129 of the participants (or 57.33%) were registered during the contest).

Participants from Sweden: 25. In Sweden there were a lot of people that participated in the events and visited the museums but didn't uploaded their images in time. For example¸ on the weekend May 22nd-23rd a total of 19 people visited Skokloster Castle and told the museum staff that they came as part of WLPA, however only one uploaded images during the actual contest. Hopefully they will upload their images later on outside of the contest.

Five different photo safaris and Wiki meet-ups were organized in Stockholm and Gothenburg as part of the contest. They had a total of circa 30 participants all in all (i.e. around 20 different persons). Around ten of them had not taken part in any event organized by WMSE prior to this.

External communication: Up until May 14 2013 there were 17 news reports and blog posts about Wiki Loves Public Art, but there have been more mentions since then. They will be listed on Wikimedia Commons. A couple of press releases will also be sent out in June about the end of the contest and the winner.

There were also four blog posts published on wlpa.se and six blog posts on wlpa.eu about the event.

9,250 photos of 2,155 different objects were uploaded as part of the contest; this is a result that we are very happy with as we covered more than 73 percent of all the objects listed for the contest (Sweden is here excluded as we didn't had lists this year)!

All infrastructure for the contest on Wikimedia Commons and the ToolServer were finalized at the end of April/beginning of May (database, lists, templates etc.). WMAT helped with creating a statistic page for the contest on http://stats.wlpa.at/.

The two bugs on VisualEditor got resolved.

Activities conducted.

Created a three short videos on features on Wikipedia.

Wiki Loves Public Art contest.

The Swedish jury, consisting of five people (both professional museum photographers and Wikimedia volunteers) decided on the Swedish winners for the Wiki Loves Public Art photo contest.

As mentioned above, the Education program extension got activated on Swedish Wikipedia.

An externally financed pre-study on UmepediA, a QR-pedia project in Umeå (when the city is the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2014), started.

What worked and what did not?

Wiki Loves Public Art

Some lessons learned have already been listed here. (Note that the list is still under construction).

The other teams will also be able to add their experiences on Commons.

We have also prepared a Participants' Survey that is about to get translated and delivered to all participants.

There were a large delay before CentralNotice was activated properly by the admins on Meta. The first two weeks it wasn't activated for users that were not logged in. As there was a substantial increase from the day CentralNotice was activated for not-logged in users this is something that potentially could have changed the amount of participants quite a lot.

Make policy makers and institutions aware of the advantages of free knowledge.

Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

A round table with more Members of Parliament will be arranged.

Our board member Ylva Pettersson wrote a blog post on The Swedish National Agency for Education's blog on how to use Wikipedia in the classroom.

The survey gives us one baseline which we can measure future activities towards.

Activities conducted.

Four videos with talks on different aspects of copyright from an event in February were published. [4]

Our intern arranged a meeting with a Member of Parliament for a short discussion on public domain and digital commons issues and unclearities in the Swedish law.

One volunteer made a Wikipedia usage survey and sent it out to all Members of Parliament. The results can be seen here (in English).

Cooperated with Europeana Fashion with their work on a Handbook for GLAMs on how to organize edit-a-thons.

Assisted Europeana with the preparation of a case study about our joint edit-a-thons. The report will be ready in August.

Created a well received presentation about the work done within the Europeana Awareness project for the Europeana Awareness Assembly (where GLAM professionals involved in the Europeana Awareness project participated). The Prezi presentation can be found here.

A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. The purpose of this section is to elicit some of these insights, which will be shared throughout the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.

What were your major accomplishments in the past quarter, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?

Wiki Loves Public Art was a major accomplishment and gave over 9,000 images on over 2,000 objects from over 200 participants of which more than 100 new participants.

Starting collaboration with The Swedish Educational broadcasting radio on using Wikiversity as a platform. That will increase our credibility and reach a lot and make further work a lot easier.

The overall large number of edit-a-thons, increasing the quality on the content on the projects.

What were your major setbacks in the past quarter (e.g., programs that were not successful)?

The low turn-out on the GLAM-WIKI 2013 hackathon.

Not a setback really, but within GLAM we are experiencing quite good response, however the institutions usually plan for a very long time ahead so collaborations take time to setup.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

Increasing use of interns has made us a little bit more effective and have also increased quality in produced material due to more eyes on texts.

As earlier it is a combination of the projects being looked upon as a useful tool by both educators and GLAM and the staff that is really enthusiastic and creative.

Having an office made it very easy to organize several edit-a-thons in a short time span.

What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?

Fundraising has been tough and is going slow. This made no real impact this quarter but will in the last two since our budget has calculated that only 50% of funds is from FDC.

Negotiations with some external funding has taken more time than anticipated which might make some projects to pushed forward in time.

The fact that our Education manager leaves us to start working as Global education manager will partly affect our Wikipedia in Education program. Sophie has built a strong reputation among teachers and it will take some time to get up to speed on that. On the other hand, we will lower the intensity of the program, and planning for synergies with the the projects Swedish for immigrants and Women on Wikipedia that really takes off in August.

What changes might you make in executing your initiatives into the next quarter?

Priorities within the exisiting programs will shift, in order to be able to execute some programs that has received low level engagement until now. All these changes are within the scope on our yearly plan.

Being more explicit with external parties on how responsibilities are divided to avoid confusion.

We have started on getting more volunteers involved in our projects. On each project page, there is a prominently displayed list of tasks suited for a volunter, (example) and all these are also aggregated to a long list.

We are also looking deeper into measuring the impact. We are building a matrix to be able to track which of our yearly goals each project are helping to complete. It is a bit complex since several projects help to fullfill several goals. The plan is to have it ready before next years planning starts in late August.

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement?[edit]

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Yes.

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".